Legal question here. It would seem that the 2nd court's decision affirms the NFL's claim that in matters involving the "integrity of the game", Goodell has wide latitude - almost carte blanche - power to implement penalties, even those far, far outside what the rule book normally calls for. So long as the "process" is done within the limits of the CBA. That is, the commissioner gathers information, issues a ruling, and then allows the player the opportunity to appeal the ruling - which, of course, could be heard by Goodell himself.
The court ruling has nothing to do with whether Goodell actually made a reasonable or right decision in the first place. From what it seemed throughout this entire discussion, legal precedent meant that even if someone in Goodell's position grossly erred, as long as he followed the proper process, the court really couldn't do anything about it.
So here's a scenario. Admittedly extreme, but I want to probe the consequences of this ruling.
The rule book allows for no tampering with footballs. Let's say that the officials erred and handed the Patriots a football that Brady was like, holy cow this is hard as a rock, and he told his ball guy to test it on the sidelines. Say it measured at 19.5 psi - way, way above the legal limit - and Brady said, get that down within range. And the ball guy did it. Now in this scenario, what Brady and the ball guy did is still totally against the rules, even though they'd just be taking an overinflated football and deflating it down to the proper psi range. Still - totally against the rules.
Let's say this was discovered, and Goodell decided that the penalty was going to be to suspend Brady for three full seasons.
Ok crazy, right? Right. No doubt. But let's say that was his ruling, citing the "integrity of the game", blah blah blah. And Brady appealed....to Goodell, and Goodell affirmed his prior ruling, and therefore, Brady is suspended for three seasons for this.
At what point would a penalty for an infraction be something that just is too ridiculous for a court to allow? If this 2nd court ruling stands, then can't Goodell do this? All Goodell would have to do is cite the "integrity of the game" and use the language that says "including but not limited to $25,000 fine". Because, I mean, the penalty he gave Brady for deflategate (even granting the pretty absurd premise that it happened in the first place) is quite extreme, given what the rule book calls for in the first place.
So could Goodell do this, based on the 2nd court's ruling?
@ericwinston 
